Racist reactions to Obama's election ignorant

The point of this entire article was to suggest that the only reason anyone is opposed to Obama is because of racism. Perhaps some people are, but most people are also against his disturbing Marxism and his growingly apparent deceit. He ran as the “peace” candidate and is already throwing that out the window, promising a continual presence in Iraq and a greater presence in Afghanistan among other places. I understand that the State News editors believe in all knowing super humans who can run everything. Since they cannot grasp why anyone would oppose such tyranny they assume it is motivated by ignorance and bigotry. I am against million man youth brigades, foreign wars, and violently enforced socialism all of which dictate opposition to Obama, and none of which equate to racism.

That Obama has now changed his tune should surprise no one; every politician who gets elected always changes their tune when the reality of the job and necessities present themselves. The only difference is that Obama will have to change sooner becasue of the horrific problems he will face from day one. Many wonder why elected officials seem to veer from what they promise; in the President’s case, he is now privvy to intelligence he would never have seen had he not been elected. Noe ha shas a more complete picture of all the problems he has to face.

We are displaying to the world that we are once and for all a country of racists who flaunt our Constitution at the rest of the world, while
trodding upon the rights of its citizens.
Obama won fare and square,and the bigot’s are proving once again it
does not matter, they just don’t want a President of substance and intellect, that just happens to be Black.

I think it was established that race was an issue with Obama since at least LAST THURSDAY.

Nowhere in this column was the opinion expressed that all (or even a significant fraction) of Obama’s detractors are racist. The disturbing thing is that a few very vocal ones are, which is unfortunate for everyone.

I would like to caution against the characterisation of these actions as “hate crimes”, though. There is no crime in holding or expressing a racist thought; that’s one of the things that makes this federation great: we allow people to express their ideas, no matter how offensive and disturbing they are. Aside from that, good column peoples.

Strawman. Can’t you think of anything better?

What About Black Christians?

Yes, you’ve stated the obvious. Excellent.

Now — what about the WHITE LIBERAL attacks on African-American CHRISTIANS who, in good faith, voted NO on Prop. 8 in Calif.?

Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

Where is your indignation about those racist attacks?

Uh .. not politically correct?

Never mind. You’re going to ignore the facts; your minds are framed to the left.

I wish this editorial had been a column because then at least I could peg their lack of logical reasoning skills on a single person.
The main points of the article were that people are distressed about Obama’s election and people are racist. Nowhere in the editorial do they ever link the dots. They only imply, without evidence, that this distress is 100% because of racism.

Obama did not run on a platform of Peace. He advocated for more troops in Afghanistan and raised the possibility of invading Pakistan if solid intelligence revealed the location of Bin Laden. He does seem to be backing down on his Iraq withdrawal position a bit, particularly with his Sec. of Defense appointment.
I’ve seen numerous conservatives criticize Obama for abandoning or compromising positions they heavily criticized him for. It’s baffling. Who cares if he is compromising for the good of our country? Isn’t that what a President is supposed to do. Of course the fact that he isn’t even President makes these criticisms even mor ridiculous.
Black Christians- The prop 8 attacks, which you conservatives are clinging to and bring up as often as possible, were not motivated by race, they were motivated by the prop 8 vote. So I fail to see your connection.

“a store in Michigan flying a flag upside down” did any of you idiots even research this at all? The flag was flown upside down at a GUN SHOP An employee used the N word and was subsequently FIRED for it. The OWNER of the shop flew the flag upside down as a sign of protest to Obama’s ANTI-GUN beliefs, which should scare the owner of a GUN SHOP! “It’s basically a display of alarm. The winning presidential candidate was not our choice and has the worst anti-gun record in Congress, let alone the Senate,” Fellows said. But go ahead and leave out the details if it helps “prove” your hypothesis.

So this guy in Wisconsin is racist against white people because he flew his flag upside down during Bush’s presidency?

“ .. The prop 8 attacks .. were not motivated by race ..”

Oh .. all those stories about FAR-LEFT WHITES attacking BLACK church members about Prop. 8 were just figments of the public’s imagination?

Dang .. our no-good lyin’ eyes have deceived us again.

Again — you’re going to ignore the facts; your minds are framed to the left.

FAR-LEFT WHITES attacking BLACK church members about Prop. 8

If they were attacking them about Prop 8 how were they motivated by race? It would seem they were motivated by the vote on Prop 8.

“If they were attacking them about Prop 8 how were they motivated by race?”

What part about WHITE PEOPLE ATTACKING BLACK CHURCH-GOERS ain’t you getting?

White Democrats so crazy.

The point being made is that these people were being attacked for their “yes” vote on Prop 8. The fact that one group was white while the other was black was inconsequential. Or, in other words, these white people were not attacking these black people simply because of their race. Instead they were attacking these people who happen to be black because they support Prop 8.

Not saying the attacks are justified, but people are trying to compare apples to oranges here.

Thank you, “missing the point.” However, I’ve posted it before and I’ll say it again, conservatives don’t understand nuance.

If i get in a fight with a black guy because we don’t agree on something or it just comes to that, I would be charged with a hate crime even though I am not a racist. Any white people attacking any people of color is a hate crime, no matter the reason.

I find this editorial to be utterly despicable.
This self-righteous, condescending blathering does nothing to provoke positive discussion or reflection-as editorials should-but instead rehashes the same pathetic arguments that succeeds only in making liberals look like fools. The fact that there are a handful of noose-hanging, rabble-rousing idiots somewhere in America does not warrant a sophomoric, amateur liberal student newspaper like the State News to engage in some laughable moralistic speculation about our racism in America and our president-elect.
To conjecture that if Obama does a bad job, people might say it’s because he is an “inferior” black, to me, is outrageously racist in itself! This type of talk does nothing but stoke the race flame. Once again, liberals, are you that stupid to see this?
Our nation elected with an overwhelming majority a mulatto man to the highest office. So what? He’s half-black. Nobody cares! They just want the economy to get better. People want to keep their jobs. They want to be safe from Muslim terrorists. They don’t care about skin color!
But liberalism, in order to survive as an ideology in this God-given country, needs to victimize their voting bloc. Even though Obama got elected, paternalistic liberals must continue to victimize blacks, so the folks in the hood don’t care about other issues that might lead them to vote Republican every once in a while.
Liberalism is a disease. They themselves sow nothing but unrest and falsehoods. I am completely offended by this editorial. The snot-nose undergrads who wrote this junk should be ashamed of their own intellectual bankruptcy.

p.s. The grammar and overall writing of this editorial was terrible. It seems hastily-written, hence the bad logic, and I found it difficult to read, as if a sixth-grader wrote it. MSU is ranked as the 71st-best university in the world, and this newspaper, with its writing and content, does not properly reflect that lofty status. The writing by the columnists and editorial staff is consistently very bad.

Dan, I’m actually going to agree with you for once. However, I can’t bring myself to believe the SN Editorial Board is part of a conspiracy of “paternalistic liberals [who] must continue to victimize blacks.” I think your concluding comments about the poor quality of writing/logic have more to do with the publishing of this op-ed than any sort of liberal agenda. As a moderate liberal, I agree with your comments “to conjecture that if Obama does a bad job, people might say it’s because he is an “inferior” black, to me, is outrageously racist in itself!” If he does a bad job, he simply does a bad job.

And, no, just because a white guy and a black guy get into a physical altercation, it is not automatically a “hate crime.” It’s only classified as a hate crime if an individual is targeted solely on physical or personal traits such as race, gender, sexual identity, etc. Again, you must understand nuance to grasp this concept.

Not missing-
Here is the Michigan Hate Law Statute:
MCL 750.147b- “A person is guilty of ethnic intimidation if that person maliciously, and with specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person’s race, color, religion, gender, or national origin, does any of the following:”

That statute pretty much directly contradicts your last sentence.
You have to have the specific intent to intimidate because of their race.
Sure you may be charged with a hate crime, but absent some evidence that race etc. was the reason you attacked them, the judge would likely throw out the charge.

Thank you, Jason! And seriously, “Not Missing the Point”, while prosecutors may occasionally attempt to pin something as a hate crime based on the relative races of the victim and accused, a difference in race is not in itself grounds in any jurisdiction in the US (and probably anywhere) for a conviction of a “hate crime”.

And Bill Lumberg^1, regarding Hampbel’s of Traverse City: While its owners may not be racist, it certainly isn’t a very “civil” store. I went in there last summer to have keys made and noticed that they were selling Michael Moore bulls-eye bumper-stickers. I asked the clerk about them, and he told me that Moore was a “fat-assed communist” who “deserves what’s coming to him”.

1. Who isn’t an MSU student.

We can’t forget that children are born without a reason to hate anyone. Prejudices are passed down by adults — resulting in incidents such as the one in Idaho.

I am not sure this is true. There seems to be a built in natural attraction of like people in a peer group. I would not describe this as hate, but it is prejudice. Different is more scary than same.

Your telling me that if a black kid is picked on all the time by white kids, he won’t grow a little dis-taste for that race. It only comes if an adult says it.

“Bill Lumberg … Who isn’t an MSU student.”

How did you figure that one out, genius? People search on MSU’s homepage? Great work.

(Note: I’m not Bill Lumberg)

“Your telling me that if a black kid is picked on all the time by white kids, he won’t grow a little dis-taste for that race.”

The question then becomes why are the white kids picking on the black kids in the first place? I think the point the SNews editorial board was trying to make is children are accepting of everyone because they don’t know anything. They are taught that “different is scary” from adult interactions. I’m not sure this is entirely true, but I’m guessing this is what the editorial board was getting at…

Joe, I disagree… I think you will find that the “different is scary” comes from instinct.

They have studies that show even black people have higher blood pressure when it is taken by another black person, because they are not used to seeing a black doctor. It is something different.